THE Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court test case decision granting former dockworkers, including Scarisbrick man Robert Thompson, compensation from the government.

But Mr Thompson, 65, and his wife Margaret, say they feel like they’re “back at square one” as news emerged that the government department deemed responsible, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) intends to appeal again through the House of Lords.

Margaret told the Visiter: “We’re not happy, and of course with the way things are with my husband, he hasn’t been well for the last few weeks anyway.

“He’s having pain in his lungs and is just worried sick about his health.”

The couple have been fighting the case, along with Winifred Rice of Ormskirk, for seven years after contracting illnesses from unloading raw asbestos at Merseyside docks.

As reported in the Visiter, the High Court found in an earlier case that the DTI was culpable for the health problems experienced by the dockers, despite the government’s challenge that they were all employed by the National Dock Labour Board scheme.

The workers were often transferred between different shipowning and stevedoring companies daily or weekly and many of the companies are now insolvent, or cease to exist, and their insurers cannot be traced or have themselves become insolvent.

Margaret Thompson said: “It’s not about the compensation, money doesn’t come into it.

“It’s about someone saying, yes I was responsible.

“It’s about justice for people who have already gone and for people fighting, some of whom are worse than my husband.”

Law firm John Pickering and Partners LLP represented the families, and partner Kevin Johnson believes the Court of Appeal’s ruling against the DTI is right.

He said: “By the time these men became ill through asbestos, they can’t trace and pursue many of the private dock companies that employed them.

“But the dock labour boards knew they were exposing the men to harm by allowing them to work unprotected.”

Margaret added that she is “disgusted” by the government’s response to the Court of Appeal ruling.